Forum Discussion
192 Replies
travelnutz wrote:
Best truck package offering available for all??? Sure, like a 4.10 rear axle on either Ram or Ford so the engine turns a lot more revolutions per mile and then the Ram and Ford fuel guzzlers would have consumed 15%-20% more fuel than the GM! Further distancing the points given between the 3 for fuel economy. Just another hurdle popping up. Each time the cylinder fires it must have enough fuel to do so or there's NO combustion! Excess fuel consumed. Get it? It's not rocket science! I'll just bet both Ram and Ford would be so happy to have that guzzeling MPG fact displayed.
More and more excuses doesn't make the test results seem any better but sure does expose the lack of knowledge some posters really have! Citing facts is not condescending but simply "factual". I expect no better from some of you posters and as usual, you live up to your billing.
Just like I thought. Not even a peep about the 2500 gasser test. Didn't care for these factual results there Nutz?Cummins12V98 wrote:
NC Hauler wrote:
4x4ord wrote:
I just read over the scoring sheet a little closer and have to admit there is some stuff that make the results a little off in my mind. For example the Ford was on top the Davis Dam run almost a minute ahead of the Chevy and 1.25 minutes ahead of the Ram. That's like a mile in front and it gained only 10 points?? Then on the subjective scoring Aaron Bragman was very biased toward the Ram. These trucks are not that different ... 65 points for overall value for the Ford and 80 for the more expensive Ram .... give me a break ... I can see him not liking the Ford but for less money you definitely get a little more with Ford ... things like incredible tow mirrors that are both power extend and power fold; genuine leather seats vs synthetic leather in the supplied Ram; a more refined quieter engine :); keypad entry system. I would throw out Aaron's scores and call the results very close but a little less biased:
GMC...2827
Ford...2766
Ram...2706
My Longhorn Ram doesn't have "synthetic leather":h..I KNOW the Laramie Limited doesn't have "synthetic leather" and Mine is genuine leather....the rest I don't really care about:)
Hey give it to the Ford...I picked them to win any way, and had Chevy in 2nd....Ram was last...no matter how they finished....
The leather in our Longhorns is what you would find in the top of the line luxury cars. Now the Laramie that's a different story.
Nope. My Laramie has real leather.4x4ord wrote:
If they had raced a 3.73 Ram against a 4.10 Ram, the 4.10 would not necessarily do any better in any one particular test but could possibly have done better or worse in some of the hill climbs. Look at it this way: the Cummins is capable of delivering a certain maximum amount of horsepower to the rear wheels. Let's say that number is 300 ponies. Now some of that power will be used to overcome rolling resistance and drag so let's guess that at 50 mph there is 220 HP available to pull a loaded trailer up a hill. By definition 220 horsepower is enough power to lift 121000 lbs 1 foot in 1 second. Now consider a particular hill: say one with a 7% grade: at 50 mph the truck and trailer are gaining elevation at the rate of 5 ft per second. If my assumptions of available rear wheel power are right the Cummins could pull a 24,200 lb truck and trailer combination up a 7% grade at 50 mph (121,000 lbs divded by 5 equals 24,200 lbs). In order to achieve that maximum speed of 50 mph the transmission and rear end need to have a ratio that will allow the engine to run at the rpm it makes maximum power while spinning the rear 50 mph. If the rear end is geared too low the truck will upshift and the rpm will drop to where the engine makes fewer ponies and the truck will slow down. Now choose a different hill or different weight and the perfect gear ratio is something different. This why the Ford was able to leave the Ram and Chevy in the dust on the Davis hill but was very close on the Eisenhower. It got stuck between gears where it couldn't make its 440 HP.
Agree.
I think the Davis test would have been closer if they didn't start the clock from a stop, but from a moving speed like most hills are approached at.
The 4.10 Ram would have gotten up to speed easier/quicker, but once at speed probably would have done about the same just in a different gear.
Each trans/gear combo has speeds where it excels based on the final drive ratio and tire size. The more gears the more speeds a truck can utilize uphill.Cummins12V98 wrote:
I have the 3:42's and tow a combined near 29K. I assume the big reason for the 3 different rear axles is how much weight each can get rolling on a steep grade. 4:10's would make a difference for me.
As far as fuel economy driving solo with 3:42's I don't think it makes a bit of difference over 4:10's, I get 14.7 or so hand calc freeway. I also don't think the tall gears hurt me either towing as some think. I average 9.5 hand calc West Coast towing averaged over many tanks.
Yes starting power is a big difference, but still gear for gear 4.10's can put 20% more torque to the wheel.
As you have noted in other posts and threads you gear down and get the same effect, or even more. 3.42's in 3rd is slightly lower than 4.10's in 4th and 3.42's in 4th is within .06:1 of 4.10's in 5th. So the torque available to the wheels is close enough to not notice a difference at higher speeds.Turtle n Peeps wrote:
It does not make power, but it does increase or decrease the power depending on the ratio.
850 ft/lbs in direct they 3.73's is 3170 ft/lbs to the wheel, 4.10's would put 3485ft/lbs to the wheel, 9.9%, for the same engine output and fuel consumption. That is the difference in 775 ft/lbs or 850 ft/lbs for the same gearing. At 2500 rpms that is like an additional 35hp... So yes it does make a difference.
I also don't believe that the difference in rpms, 9.9%, is going to make a huge difference in fuel economy on a modern HPCR engine, 20 years ago absolutely.
Sorry but it doesn't work like that.
The best way I can explain it without writing a book is this:
Chassis dyno a vehicle a with 2.75 gears in it and note the HP.
Then chassis dyno the same vehicle with a 4.56 gear in it.
Or do this. Take a vehicle and dyno it in a 1 to 1 gear or as close to 1 to 1 as you can get. Then take the same vehicle and dyno it in 1st gear.
Which vehicle is going to show the most HP? This will be HP to the wheel which is what counts. From your way of thinking the 1st gear way of dyno'ing should show way more HP. See if it works out that way for you.
If the short gear will not make that much difference in fuel economy why doesn't Ram just have the 4:10 gear and call it good? Think what that would do. Less inventory stock. You could just stock one gear in your dealers for your trucks.
I have the 3:42's and tow a combined near 29K. I assume the big reason for the 3 different rear axles is how much weight each can get rolling on a steep grade. 4:10's would make a difference for me.
As far as fuel economy driving solo with 3:42's I don't think it makes a bit of difference over 4:10's, I get 14.7 or so hand calc freeway. I also don't think the tall gears hurt me either towing as some think. I average 9.5 hand calc West Coast towing averaged over many tanks.- If they had raced a 3.73 Ram against a 4.10 Ram, the 4.10 would not necessarily do any better in any one particular test but could possibly have done better or worse in some of the hill climbs. Look at it this way: the Cummins is capable of delivering a certain maximum amount of horsepower to the rear wheels. Let's say that number is 300 ponies. Now some of that power will be used to overcome rolling resistance and drag so let's guess that at 50 mph there is 220 HP available to pull a loaded trailer up a hill. By definition 220 horsepower is enough power to lift 121000 lbs 1 foot in 1 second. Now consider a particular hill: say one with a 7% grade: at 50 mph the truck and trailer are gaining elevation at the rate of 5 ft per second. If my assumptions of available rear wheel power are right the Cummins could pull a 24,200 lb truck and trailer combination up a 7% grade at 50 mph (121,000 lbs divded by 5 equals 24,200 lbs). In order to achieve that maximum speed of 50 mph the transmission and rear end need to have a ratio that will allow the engine to run at the rpm it makes maximum power while spinning the rear 50 mph. If the rear end is geared too low the truck will upshift and the rpm will drop to where the engine makes fewer ponies and the truck will slow down. Now choose a different hill or different weight and the perfect gear ratio is something different. This why the Ford was able to leave the Ram and Chevy in the dust on the Davis hill but was very close on the Eisenhower. It got stuck between gears where it couldn't make its 440 HP.
Turtle n Peeps wrote:
Sorry but it doesn't work like that.
The best way I can explain it without writing a book is this:
Chassis dyno a vehicle a with 2.75 gears in it and note the HP.
Then chassis dyno the same vehicle with a 4.56 gear in it.
Or do this. Take a vehicle and dyno it in a 1 to 1 gear or as close to 1 to 1 as you can get. Then take the same vehicle and dyno it in 1st gear.
Which vehicle is going to show the most HP? This will be HP to the wheel which is what counts. From your way of thinking the 1st gear way of dyno'ing should show way more HP. See if it works out that way for you.
If the short gear will not make that much difference in fuel economy why doesn't Ram just have the 4:10 gear and call it good? Think what that would do. Less inventory stock. You could just stock one gear in your dealers for your trucks.
It absolutely works that way, that's what gearing and torque multiplication is.. plain and simple. Do a little research on it, and do not confuse HP with Torque.
Chassis dyno's are not a good example, too hard to load the engine in lower gears. The engine is out of rpms before full power can be made. This is why dyno runs are generally done in 1:1 for NA/super charged motors and OD for turbo motors. The last time I dyno'd I ran 5th and 6th. HP was within 1% but torque was 50 ft/lbs lower on the 5th run because the rpms increase faster than the engine makes power. So a run in 5th didn't get to full power until 2500 rpms plus, but the 6th run gets there around 2000. Neither of the run were as much boost as on the street, meaning that there is actually more power than recorded.
They don't do just 4.10 for the same reason Ford has a lower geared transmission and a higher geared rear end, public perception. I am also not saying it doesn't make any difference, just saying the difference is much smaller than most think with modern engines.
My dad 2006 Dodge has the AD ratio G56, with a .79:1 OD and I have a 2005 with a .73:1 NV5600. Both truck have 3.73's, but his OD is low enough that his final drive is nearly identical to what mine would be with 4.10's and we get pretty much the same mileage on the freeway, close enough that sometimes he is a little better and sometimes I am. Loaded up he can get better mileage in 6th that I do because the engine needs to make less power to get the same torque to the wheel.It does not make power, but it does increase or decrease the power depending on the ratio.
850 ft/lbs in direct they 3.73's is 3170 ft/lbs to the wheel, 4.10's would put 3485ft/lbs to the wheel, 9.9%, for the same engine output and fuel consumption. That is the difference in 775 ft/lbs or 850 ft/lbs for the same gearing. At 2500 rpms that is like an additional 35hp... So yes it does make a difference.
I also don't believe that the difference in rpms, 9.9%, is going to make a huge difference in fuel economy on a modern HPCR engine, 20 years ago absolutely.
Sorry but it doesn't work like that.
The best way I can explain it without writing a book is this:
Chassis dyno a vehicle a with 2.75 gears in it and note the HP.
Then chassis dyno the same vehicle with a 4.56 gear in it.
Or do this. Take a vehicle and dyno it in a 1 to 1 gear or as close to 1 to 1 as you can get. Then take the same vehicle and dyno it in 1st gear.
Which vehicle is going to show the most HP? This will be HP to the wheel which is what counts. From your way of thinking the 1st gear way of dyno'ing should show way more HP. See if it works out that way for you.
If the short gear will not make that much difference in fuel economy why doesn't Ram just have the 4:10 gear and call it good? Think what that would do. Less inventory stock. You could just stock one gear in your dealers for your trucks.goducks10 wrote:
Well it'll be interesting to see if GM can make up their low 1 ton sales this year. In 2013 GM was dead last with Ram selling almost twice as many 1 tons as GM did. Ford spanked both. All you GM 1 ton lovers can enjoy your win but remember there are far fewer of you than Ram and Ford 1 ton owners.
I recommend that you remember that these numbers were estimated, and not reported by the OEM. I believe that they used a variety of sources. And estimates are exactly that.chevor wrote:
Cummins12V98 wrote:
Since they reduced the potential performance of the RAM and Ford trucks by making them all use the 3:73's do you think the results would be the same if they all three offered their BEST towing package?
I sure would like to see all the trucks with different drivetrain specs tested. The Dodge website confuses me. I can build a 3500 truck over 100 different ways?
It's actually Ram, and you can build a 3500 a 100 different way's IF you want to work with the or very fancy or just plain ole truck:), but in reality, you can only get the 3500's with a manual transmission, the 68RFE auto tranny or the Aisin tranny...that's one important option. Now on the 3500 DRW you have the option of 3:42, 3:73 or 4:10 gear that's the other important option...Not really that hard to figure out...You pick the tranny you want and the gearing you want in the Dually. In the SRW truck, you pick the tranny, It only come's with 3:42 gearing...After that, the rest is just how fancy or plain you want your truck.
I've ordered Chevy's and I've ordered the Ram in my sig, and neither one was that big of a deal to put togather, not confusing if you know what you want and every option gives you a definition of the option, just like Chevy does.45Ricochet wrote:
catfishmontana wrote:
travelnutz wrote:
I love seeing all the excuses posted by the Ram/Cummins pom pom boys. There was never any question as to what the results would be in the tests to anyone with an educated brain. Some try to lie their way thru their losses and failures in life in the real world while some others obviously only tell the truth. Absolutely no surprize that GM diesel trucks were voted and proven number 1 over and over as usual and is/was done with no excuses needed like the other two and their banner boys constantly utter! They have nothing else to show for their lacking choice/choices.
The GM costs 6% less than the Ram and is less than the Ford. GM's better riding and quieter. Gives approx 10% better fuel economy when hauling. The GM wins everytime but still the Ram slug boys with Ram's artificial and bogus as usual HP and Torque fictitious claimed power numbers is proven to be wrong again as usual as was Ford. Words are cheap and have no meaning as actual real world performance and testing gives the real and honest FACTS! The honestly and Sanction Certified much lower HP and torque of the GM says it all in tests. Must be some like to pay more for their trucks at purchase and then continue to pay more everytime they drive them. Then at the day of reckoning, the killer nail is when they even get less when they sell or trade their trucks away. What ever happened to learning a real "ejamacation" anyway?
How about the huge difference in brake temps going dowwnhill?
You blind and misled boys humor me so much and please keep it up! I like the laughs...
I'll just let you in on a little secret of sorts for the 2016 model year HD diesel trucks. The actual GM performances will be even far greater than these in this test and leave you scratching your already sore bleeding head. A little hinting has been done already in print media.
Just wanted to point out, the fact that the Ram starts to reel the other two trucks back in in the tests shows that it has a horsepower advantage. The only other way it could catch up is aerodynamics.......and that's not what is happening. LOL
Just let him keep gloating on the victory Derrick, hopefully some sales will follow. Pretty sure a Chevy version would not have done as well as the Cadillac version for GM. Congrats again GMC guys :B
:B
